Dr. Robert Young, in his literal translation, reads, 'that accepted

hath been her punishment'.  This translation will be found in the margin of

the Revised Version and merits examination.  To the evangelical mind, there

is something extremely objectionable in this new translation, and if intruded

into the epistles of Paul would indeed be intolerable, but we must not forget

that, however full of evangelical grace this most glorious of prophecies may

be, it was originally uttered, 'concerning Judah and Jerusalem' (Isa. 1:1),

and doctrines that are foreign to the gospel of the grace of God may be in

perfect harmony in the dealings of God with Israel.  If Israel knew the law

of Moses with reference to the 'warfare' through which they had passed, they

also knew the conditions that were attached to its cessation and their

restoration to favour.  The passage that illuminates Isaiah 40:2 is found in

Leviticus 26.  Here the word 'accept' is the Hebrew word ratsah, and the word

'punishment' is the Hebrew avon, which two words appear respectively as

'pardon' and 'iniquity'.  This same word ratsah supplies us with 'the

acceptable year of the Lord' (Isa. 61:2), and the acceptance of the offerer

because of the vicarious sacrifice (Lev. 1:4), which facts have their place

in the final and complete acceptance, in grace, of this disobedient and

gainsaying people.

We have not yet arrived at Isaiah 53, and must therefore expound Isaiah

40:2 by principles of truth, and not by feelings and wishes.  If the reader

will read the prayer of Nehemiah (Neh. 1), and of Daniel (Dan. 9), he will

perceive that these two men of God knew and understood the principles of

God's dealings with His ancient people that are implied in the translation of

Isaiah 40:2 offered in this article.  Moreover, the reader may be glad to see

another example of the dual meaning that attaches to such words as

'iniquity', 'acceptance', 'punishment', and 'pardon', by referring to Genesis

4:13, 'And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can

bear', and consulting the margin which reads: 'Or, mine iniquity is greater

than that it may be forgiven'.  We do not propose, however, to enter into the

question of Genesis 4 and its interpretation, but merely draw the reader's

attention to the fact that these dual meanings are recognized by all Hebrew

scholars.  We can at least learn one lesson from this feature, namely, that,

in the eyes of the Lord, 'iniquity' and 'punishment' are but two sides of one

subject, even as are 'pardon' and 'acceptance'.

Referring back to the structure of Isaiah 40:1 -11, given on page 353,

we have the voice of him that 'crieth' in the wilderness, in correspondence

with the voice of the Lord that bids the prophet to 'cry' and, unless we are

careful here, we may be confused by the interchange of speakers.

'The voice said, Cry'.  The voice is the voice of the Lord, addressing

the prophet and urging him to take up the glad message of Isaiah 40:1,2, 'Cry

unto her, that her warfare is accomplished'.  But the prophet can hardly

believe his ears, for the gladness and graciousness of the message.  He

looked at the people: a people of whom he had said, in the opening vision of

his prophecy, 'Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity; a seed of

evildoers, children that are corrupters' (Isa. 1:4), and his heart failed

him.  Can restoration be anything more than a dream, a vision, a hope; but a

hope doomed to perpetual disappointment?

'The voice said, "Cry", and Isaiah replied, "what shall I cry?" (or

what is the use of crying?) for "all flesh is grass", destined to wither